Skip to main content

About your Search

Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3
came during a hearing on u.s. security threats. janet napolitano and the fbi associate director also testified. this is an hour and 50 minutes. >> the hearing will come to order. good morning to all. this is our annual, our committee's annual home lapd threat assessment hearing -- homeland threat assessment hearing. i want to welcome back janet napolitano, secretary of department of homeland security, and matt olsen, and the associate deputy director, kevin perkins, who is standing in for director bob mueller today. the director had to undergo unexpected surgery resulting from complications associated with recent dental treatment. he's unable to join us today. but we welcome mr. perkins in his stead. we with confidence we extend best regards to the director for a speedy recovery. this will be the final time that i have the privilege of chairing this annual hearing, so i want to use this opportunity to thank each of you for your leadership in our nation's homeland security and counterterrorism efforts through you to thank those who work with you in each of your departments or agencies
that was not enough to warrant an investigation. there was nothing the fbi could point to which would single him out for special investigation or attention. was this an intelligence failure in wisconsin? >do you think there could have been things done to prevent this attack that were not done? >> i think the fbi late at where the problem was. they're really good at investigating after the fact, after things happen, but we had a delicate balance between people's constitutional right to assemble and express their speech, however weil, but we also have to be board cleaning and look at ideologies that have long histories of -- forward- looking and the ideologies that have long histories of spawning violence. i'm not talking about doing covert operations and people with extremist police, but i think it is important we have an overt monitoring police system on what is causing people to act of violence may. was this an intelligence failure? i do not think it is. but one thing the department of homeland security and the fbi could have done -- where was the warning the that sikhs and muslims have been victim
department that there were increasing security concerns in benghazi? the fbi says it is too dangerous to be in benghazi, which is why none of them are there now. is that because the>> as we dets of what took place there and how that attack took place, it became clear that there were terrorists who had planned that attack. that is when i came to that conclusion. as to who was involved, what specific groups were involved, i think the investigation that is ongoing hopefully will determine that. >> about a day after? >> it took a while to get some feedback as to what exactly happened at that location. >> there was a thread of intelligence reporting that groups were seeking to coalesce, but there was not anything specific, and certainly not anything specific to the consulate that i am aware of. as far as the risks of the fbi reported, you really would have to ask them why they made that determination. >> did you make the state department aware of the intelligence? >> the intelligence that we all get is broadly shared among intelligence agencies and all integency partners. >> i wanted to go
Search Results 0 to 2 of about 3